March 26, 2013

"Gay Marriage" in Ngram: Media Muscle in action


Here's a Google Ngram graph of usage in books of the terms "gay marriage" in red and "homosexual marriage" in blue from 1800 to 2008. The terms were essentially nonexistent until the early 1970s, after which there were a tiny, relatively stable number of references to "homosexual marriage" for two decades. Then there was an inflection point around 1994 and another one around 2003. (Methodology notes: The graph above reflects Ngram's default three-year moving average smoothing. If you turn off smoothing, the inflection points appear a little later than when smoothing is on. Of course, books perhaps lag behind other media because of their longer production cycles.)

I'm fascinated by the mechanics of media muscle reflected in the two inflection points. Here's a topic that had interested almost nobody, straight or gay, for, roughly, ever, yet then in two stages becomes a cultural obsession.

My vague recollection from following the news at the time is that the 1994 inflection point was largely due to a concentrated push by the New York Times in the early to mid 1990s. The Times' front page became obsessed with gay genes and gay this and gay that. Perhaps the second inflection point was largely created by the Times as well. In 2000, Richard Berke, the NYT's gay National Political Correspondent boasted to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association:
Now it's like, there are times when you look at the front-page meeting and ... literally three-quarters of the people deciding what's on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals. ...

Now, a theory I've long entertained is that the gay marriage brouhaha reflects a fundamentally healthy movement among gays to push more restrained lifestyles on themselves after their catastrophic debauchery in the 1970s following Gay Liberation caused the AIDS epidemic.

But, it's just expressed triple bankshot-style through today's Who? Whom? conceptual vocabulary.

These days, you see, it doesn't pay to upbraid your own kind to behave in a more traditionally moral manner, and perhaps apologize to society in general for your misdeeds and promise to act better in the future so as not to cause another horrific venereal disease epidemic. That's so ... Victorian! What did the Victorians ever accomplish? (I mean, besides building all those to-die for Victorian houses in the Castro district?)

We don't live in the Victorian Age, we live in the Victim Age. So, gays admitting that AIDS was their own fault was never on the table. So, AIDS had to be ... uh ... Ronald Reagan's fault!

Similarly, gays can't admit that  they need moral reform even when they realize it themselves. Instead, they have to be victims of oppression denying them the right to something they had never noticed they lacked in the past.

131 comments:

Anonymous said...

From negroes to blacks to african americans.

Anonymous said...

We all heard of 'transgenderism'. How about 'transracialism'?

How about all white folks say that they feel black or brown and tan their skins and either Ebonize or Hispanize their names.

So, Steve Sailer would either be
Stevaquery Sailer or Estevan Sailez.

Indeed, all whites can transracialize themselves. That way, they win prizes via affirmative action and disparate impact since they are no longer white but transracial 'blacks' or 'browns'.

Anonymous said...

Verbal lemmings.

Anonymous said...

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams162.html

Anonymous said...

"The Times' front page was obsessed with gay genes and gay this and gay that."

What's this was stuff?

Anonymous said...

Also try "same sex marriage". I hear that one being used as well.

Anonymous said...

Now, a theory I've long entertained is that the gay marriage brouhaha reflects a fundamentally healthy movement among gays to push more restrained lifestyles on themselves after their catastrophic debauchery in the 1970s caused the AIDS epidemic, but just expressed triple bankshot-style through today's Who? Whom? conceptual vocabulary.

Right, but these same people also participate in and publish stuff like this:

http://gawker.com/5992234/finding-light-at-the-black-party

Alden said...

Anonymous @ 1:49

"Lemmings" is right in more ways than one. It's a huge fad right now. Most people in my age group (20s) seem to be swept up in it. The whole movement for gay marriage seems to be one part standard leftist crusade, one part nostalgia for civil rights, one part status maneuver. And I suspect the last of those parts is the biggest.

Matthew said...

Based on my Facebook newsfeed from today, about 200 of my nearest and dearest gay friends are adamant about their right to marry (and that number doesn't count my straight friends who support them). Here's guessing that about 90% of them will never, ever get married (or even seriously consider it), and 80% of those who do will probably get divorced.

Numbers from gay marriage states bear this out: gays and lesbians don't get married to nearly the degree that heterosexuals do.

Bottom line: monogamous heterosexual relationships are hard enough to sustain. The one thing that keeps so many going is that shared biological project known as "children."

Anonymous said...

Now, a theory I've long entertained is that the gay marriage brouhaha reflects a fundamentally healthy movement among gays to push more restrained lifestyles on themselves after their catastrophic debauchery in the 1970s caused the AIDS epidemic, but just expressed triple bankshot-style through today's Who? Whom? conceptual vocabulary.

I don't think they're trying to change gay behavior towards more respectable and restrained lifestyles. I think it's more the case that they're trying to make the debauched gay lifestyle more respectable:

http://gawker.com/5992234/finding-light-at-the-black-party

"The narratives about the Black Party—the leather-themed bacchanal for gay men, which is generally modified on first reference by "infamous" and "notorious"—are as insistent as the house beats that ostensibly fuel its fun. A sense of darkness pervades it, from the name to the history to the raunch it prescribes. It originated in 1980 at the East Village nightclub the Saint, a place so synonymous with gay scene that when men started dying of a mysterious cancer-like ailment in the early '80s, some people initially referred to it as "Saint's Disease." Nowadays, the party is at the otherwise respectable Roseland Ballroom, a concert venue taken over by wild displays of public sex, both onstage and off, by professionals and amateurs alike."

The behavior hasn't changed. It's the same behavior but in more respectable venues like the Roseland Ballroom. Same thing with marriage.

Anonymous said...

I don't really care about homosexual marriage and if states want to legalize it through the political process, that's fine. However I think it is wrong for the Supreme Court to just invent a "right" that nobody noticed during the last two hundred years and overrule the California Constitution.

Anonymous said...

You are misreading this. What happened was that white women decided that they wanted gay marriage because they hate, hate, hate boring beta white guys. It's all the fault of white women. After all, the media is only giving white women what they want. Right?

carol said...

I heard part of the oral argument today, where Ginsburg asks why we don't forbid people over 55 to marry, if child rearing is the object. That argument ignores the importance of modeling, or role models. Hetero marriage of all kinds reinforces the model, even where children are not present.

It's important to set an example of a man and woman getting together, getting along despite their obvious differences. Kids can go from cynical skeptic to head-in-the-clouds romantic if they have a few examples set before them.

But that's all social phenom, not expressly contemplated in our laws. The law is an idiot.

Anonymous said...

The big issue in my view is estate tax. Man on Woman marriages allow the estate to be transferred to the surviving spouse tax free. I am not sure about increased basis on the estate.

With homosexual marriages there the estate is handled as if the estate were passed to a child or other person. Basis is stepped up after paying taxes.

Additionally there are pension and social security increases for the survivor of a Man with Woman marriage.

I have never seen this discussed anywhere. But you are talking big money as gays typically have more money than non New York Times readers.

Anonymous said...

To me it seems obvious that activist gay marriage advocates are interested primarily in two things, neither of which is gay marriage:

1) Social signaling: "I support gay marriage, so you know I am the kind of person who would have stood up to Jim Crow and Hitler. Also, I have lots of edgy, artsy friends."
2) Getting society to accept gays: This might reduce bullying of gays. That's a very good thing, but it has little to do with marriage.

One effect of the inevitable success of gay marriage is that life will be less interesting for many L.G.B.T.Q.R.S.T.U.V.s who seem greatly to enjoy having outsider identities that clash with mainstream values. It is clear that many gays prize acceptance by educated, culturally attuned cosmopolitan people, but I suspect they also secretly relish being despised by half-educated hicks and fundamentalists. When gay marriage is legal, being gay will lose its some of its cool shock value.

One other thought: the red equal sign all over Facebook and Twitter is also the number 8... as in "No on 8!" Hopefully this ambiguity won't confuse the Supremes.

Piper said...

Another reason for homosexuals' surging interest in "marriage" in the 1990's was their desire to tap into employer-paid health benefits to finance AIDS treatment and care for related maladies. Sick gays wanted to "marry" healthy ones in order to get someone else to pay for costly health care. "Marriage" as a way to get health coverage remains a gay-lobby interest today: http://www.llaa.org/news/lifelong-endorses-referendum-74

The AIDS epidemic also drove gays to look for other sources of income for the disabled. Naturally they noticed that benefits for disabled spouses or widows were often more generous than single-pauper benefits and started scheming ways to avail themselves.

The most obvious legal/political effect of the gay lobby's efforts in the 1990's was the Federal DOMA law of 1996 that relieved States and the Federal government of any obligation to recognize same-sex marriage entered-into in other jurisdictions , though States retained their authority to do so if they wished.

Anonymous said...

Funny enough none of my gay friends have posted the HRC red equality sign on their FB accounts. Most of the people I've seen post it are either overweight small town girls who moved to the LA area for college, or SoCal Latinas working on graduate degrees. They are the worst kind of suckers for anything, no matter how trivial, that lets them tell themselves they've evolved beyond their fly-over country/lower-middle class origins. I've seen a similar phenomenon concerning George Takei's obnoxious FB memes, but their appeal is a little broader.

I agree that the status angle is a big, perhaps even dominant factor in all of the Gen Y/ Millennial NO H8 nonsense. However, at least among the useful idiot crowd, the signaling is often an attempt to assuage feelings of shame rather than sh** on their class inferiors. Additional Evidence: The only men I've seen post the equality symbols are harmless insecure types as well. I've seen confident, successful, even arrogant guys post in favor of Obama, the environment, etc., but the gay marriage advocacy stuff is for losers and striving women.

dirk said...

My, um, a bit more generous theory is that AIDS caused many gays to confront End of Life issues at the exact same moment as one another in the 80's and when they compared notes they discovered straight married couples have mechanisms for dealing with these issues.

Anonyia said...

There is lots of lemming like posturing going on my Facebook thread today. My whole feed has erupted with pink equal signs. Young people are desperate for some moral superiority. It also seems to be nostalgia for civil rights, I've seen a ton of posts comparing laws against interracial marriage to laws against gay marriage. Most of these people, by the way, are self professed libertarians (cop out identification of young flyover whites who don't want to alienate conservative relatives, but still want to appear cool and hip)

Mr Lomez said...

The first inflection point in the mid-90's almost certainly had something to do with the transition from 2nd to 3rd wave feminism. By the first Bush Era, mainstream Feminists had achieved pretty much everything they set out to do in the 60's. Very soon, the movement, having run out of grievances to address, ceded control to gay and minority interests. This new very loud and very militant regime (largely lesbian), quickly reframed the discussion from one of gender to one of sexuality, all of it coded in impossibly dense and incoherent theorizing. The upshot was that a whole generation of college undergrads were becoming indoctrinated with this absurd notion that identifying as male/female or straight/gay, (white/other, for that matter) was all a "performance," a "social construction," and most importantly, qualitatively neutral. This is rote for anyone who attended college in the mid-90's or later. Hence, any distinction between marriage partners in terms of gender or sexuality is merely semantic.

Anonymous said...

Based on my Facebook newsfeed from today, about 200 of my nearest and dearest gay friends are adamant about their right to marry (and that number doesn't count my straight friends who support them).

How did you accumulate 200 gay friends?

Most straight guys don't have 200 friends, let alone 200 gay ones.

Anonyia said...

"One effect of the inevitable success of gay marriage is that life will be less interesting for many L.G.B.T.Q.R.S.T.U.V.s who seem greatly to enjoy having outsider identities that clash with mainstream values. It is clear that many gays prize acceptance by educated, culturally attuned cosmopolitan people, but I suspect they also secretly relish being despised by half-educated hicks and fundamentalists. When gay marriage is legal, being gay will lose its some of its cool shock value."

Very true. It seems that the later in life someone identifies as gay, the more they relish this shock value. My friends who have known they were gay since puberty or earlier don't seem to get as swept up into the movement. I know they still want some form of marriage/civil union, but they are far less militant about their lifestyle than the gays/lesbians who suddenly discovered their orientation in college.

Luke Lea said...

"Now it's like, there are times when you look at the front-page meeting and ... literally three-quarters of the people deciding what's on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexual. . ."

Add that to NYT's stellar coverage of Stalinism, the Holocaust, Nafta and Gatt, Whitewater, and the run-up to the Iraq invastion.

When it comes to the big stuff, a case can be made that this was (and remains) the worst newspaper in history.

fondatori said...

"...the gay marriage brouhaha reflects a fundamentally healthy movement among gays to push more restrained lifestyles on themselves after their catastrophic debauchery..."

Possibly, but lots of the gay marriage noise seems to come from rich guys whose kids come out as gay, so possibly its more of a push from outside, with the hope that the child will end up like the clean gays in the movie 'American Beauty.'

Dennis Dale said...

An extremely pro-gay-rights female said to me last summer "I think it's great what Cuba has done to combat AIDS. We could learn a lot from them."
What she was talking about was Cuba's policy of quarantining gays in camps. She was taking up a theme being pushed by the liberal media at the time.
I was wondering why the policy sounded familiar, when I realized I had read about it in the NYT years ago--framed in a nearly-opposite fashion--as a probable human rights violation: "Cuba is putting gays in camps!"
I couldn't help pointing out to her the countless lives that would have been saved had, say, San Francisco been allowed to close its bath-houses, and that it hadn't because gays wouldn't have it.

I think there's even a scene in Randy Shilts' book on the subject where one old queen gets up at one of these community meetings on the subject and--what else--starts railing on about Reagan and the Christian Right.

Ray Sawhill said...

I was under the impression that Andrew Sullivan really put the idea over with his 1995 book "Virtually Normal." When the book came out, Sullivan was widely ridiculed -- by gays! -- for his argument. Most of the gays I knew at the time laughed about it. "Marriage is one of those square, straight things we became gay in order to get away from," was their attitude.

It's quite amazing how quickly the world has discovered a previously-unsuspected "right" to marriage for gays. Has there ever been a "right" that came out of nowhere to conquer an entire oarge country in less than 20 years?

Anonymous said...

Homosexual marriage is the culmination of the protestant revolt.

Anonymous said...

I think as a lark, conservatives should come out for 'same family marriage' or 'incest marriage' and yammer endlessly about 'incestophobia' and slam the left for embracing it.

Btw, this 'same sex marriage' business. Does it allow 'non-sexual friend marriage'? Suppose two straight guys wanna 'marry' as friends just to share each other's benefits. Is that allowed under ss marriage?

How about communal marriage? Suppose a bunch of people form a commune where everyone is supposed to be married to everyone. As Hillary said, it takes a village.
I mean we don't wanna be communo-phobic.

Steve Sailer said...

"It's important to set an example of a man and woman getting together, getting along despite their obvious differences."

Right, and to socially recognize and esteem men and women getting along for long periods of time.

jimmy conway said...

But lesbians never had an AIDS epidemic, and they seem to want to get married too. Or do they? Is there less interest in gay marriage among lesbians? If anything, I'd expect there to be more.

Beefy Levinson said...

Most of the people posting red equality signs on my Facebook feed are straight white girls showing off how loving and tolerant they are.

That's pretty much the whole reason why same-sex "marriage" has become such a cultural obsession: married straight women saying to each other, "Oh but my gay hairdresser is such a nice man! He should be allowed to marry his little boyfriend!"

Anonymous said...

"[It's important] to socially recognize and esteem men and women getting along for long periods of time."

I agree. But is there any harm in recognizing same sex people getting along for long periods of time? (Even with same-sex marriage made legal, I don't think we would actually see much of it, but what would be the harm?)

Anonymous said...

I'll say this about 'gay marriage' thing. It offers one of the best opportunities to study POWER.

Suppose I was a social scientist in the 1980, and I wanted to understand the working of power in modern America. To do this, suppose I wanna carry out as massive social experiment. I wanna see how effectively and how quickly the powers-that-be could change public opinion and American politics.

I must come up with something that most people don't support because if the powers-that-be push for something new that's hardly controversial or offensive to most people, we won't know if the social change happened cuz of the use of power or because people simply didn't see anything with the new thing.

'Gay marriage' would have been a good choice for the experimient. Almost no one--not even gays--would have supported it in 1980s. They would have laughed at it. Liberals would have mocked it,and if conservatives said that such might happen in the future, libs would have accused them of hysteria and paranoia.

So, here was an issue for which most of America was solidly against.
Suppose in my social experiment, I tell the elites to use pop culture, public education-as-indoctrination, shaming techniques, pageantry, and legal pressures to change public opinion and to win over politicians. Suppose elites do like I say. And the result?

Well, look all around.
By studying this phenomenon, we can learn about the nature of power in America and how power really works: How, by pushing a certain key power buttons in society, a totally laughable taboo can become the biggest moral shibboleth of the 21st century. So fast and so dramatically, what with even conservative politicians and pundits lining up to bend over to the new order.

Someone should write a book on this subject as a study of power.
If you control the buttons of propaganda, social shaming, glamour, and legality, you can make people go nuts over anything.

Henry Canaday said...

It is regrettable that the polite conventions of argument before the Supreme Court do not allow lawyers to mention a previous case that the Court decided using logic similar to that being contemplated in the instant case and that helped create an ongoing and massive social disaster.

One previous use of the infinitely flexible Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment was the Court’s 1973 decision that this clause forbids government from distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate children in providing welfare benefits. That decision certainly enabled and to a degree encouraged the explosion in illegitimacy, now above 40 percent and widely acknowledged to be a primary cause of the pandemic self-destruction among urban blacks.

Remember blacks, Justice Ginsburg? They were the original reason the Equal Protection clause was enacted, a century before it became a Constitutional wildcard to be exploited by every vicariously oppressed group of upper middle class white people.

Anonymous said...

Jews and gays were once exiles. Now they are elites.

The new order of Exilites.

Anonymous said...

Right, and to socially recognize and esteem men and women getting along for long periods of time.

Yes, if you want to maintain a society based on faithful, long-term heterosexual monogamous relationships, then reserving a monopoly on marriage for heterosexual monogamous relationships is critical. It's possible that those who promote gay marriage are just ignorant of this and naively believe that gay marriage can't hurt heterosexual marriage, but it's more likely that they don't really want a society based on faithful, long-term heterosexual monogamous relationships. They just can't admit it to themselves nor say it to society which is still significantly descended from faithful, long-term heterosexual monogamous relationships (though of course this is changing quickly, with the tremendous rise in the population of bastards).

Anonymous said...

Dan Savage has long been using his column to promote open marriages and swinging among straights. Obviously, his hope is that if enough straights embrace those lifestyles than the disapproval that most people will feel when they learn that the vast majority of gay male LTRs are open will vanish. Gay men have no intention of stopping their swinging lifestyles as long as they have the modicum of strength to keep it up, whether legally married or not.

Gloria

Cail Corishev said...

Now, a theory I've long entertained is that the gay marriage brouhaha reflects a fundamentally healthy movement among gays to push more restrained lifestyles on themselves

You don't know many gays, do you, Steve? I don't either, but of the ones I've known, and everything I've read about them, "restrained lifestyle" is just about the last thing on their wish list. I know what you're saying, and there probably are some who are saying, "Wow, do we really need to go this far?" But they're outliers, like Bill Cosby and a handful of other blacks who are embarrassed by black dysfunction.

Same-sex marriage seems to be about two things:

Acceptance of behavior. Tolerance for what people do behind closed doors isn't enough; we all have to throw rice as they walk down the aisle to prove we accept them just as they are.

Tearing down institutions that they see as mean to them. Gays wouldn't give a crap about marriage if it were just a civil partnership contract that didn't have any religious or social implications. But to take something that's been a sacrament, a sign of God's blessing, to millions of people who disapprove of you, and turn it into something they can't stand -- ah, that's some sweet revenge.

Steve Sailer said...

"Is there less interest in gay marriage among lesbians?"

In practice, in places like the Netherlands, there is more.

But lesbians tend to be less charming than gays, so they make a less attractive public face.

vinteuil said...

"...gays can't admit that they need moral reform even when they realize it themselves. Instead, they have to be victims of oppression denying them the right to something they had never noticed they lacked in the past."

Well, in all fairness, I think that the smartest and most interesting defender of gay "marriage," Jonathan Rauch, fully agrees with you on the need for "moral reform" in the gay community, and defends it precisely because he thinks it might contribute to such reform.

I think he's probably wrong - I doubt very much that legal recognition of gay "marriage" will lead to...well..much of anything. Real "marriage," in any sort of traditional sense, simply doesn't make much sense for most gay people. Very few will take advantage of it, once it (inevitably) becomes available to them. Very, very few.

And I don't see those few doing anywhere near as much damage to the traditional institution of marriage as, say, no-fault divorce laws - which nobody seems to want to talk about.

That gay "marriage" can even be taken for a serious issue is a *consequence,* not a *cause,* of much, much bigger things.

Anonymous said...

It would have been funnier if they had made it ~
~ rather than an equal sing.

Nick Diaz said...

PART I

@Steve Sailer

The reason why gay men didn't bring it up before is not because they didn't care about it, but because Society before the 1960s was SO oppressive of gays that they had no HOPE of getting gay marriage legalized. It is inconceivable that gay marriage would be sanctioned in 1955. Ever heard of Rock Hudson?

As for AIDS, it can transmitted from anyone to anyone, from blood transfusions to vaginal sex.

But this is not the issue at all. The issue is that gay men don't owe an "apology" for AIDS because there was never a conscious decision by the gay community to do anything. Gay men who knew themselves to be infected and had sex with others and contaminated them owe and apology to the people they infected and should even be in jail, but the "gay community" does not exist as a single entity with consciousness and thus is not possesed of volition and thus is not subject to being judged by concepts of ethics.

But gay marriage is much, much more serious issue than what Steve Sailer makes it out to be: it is an issue of human rights. The most cardinal principle of Western Civilization is the principle of equality before the law. This is the one principle from which all others are axiomatically derived. Giving straight people the right to marry but not gays hurt this principle. Sailer misses the point. It doesen't matter of most gay men won't get married. It doesen't matter if most are promiscuous and have no interest in committment. What matters is this: if they WANT to get married, they should have the right to. Even if there were in the entire World no more than ONE gay couple wanting to get married, they should have the right to do so.

Steve Sailer is what I like to call a "classic" conservative. That is, he believes that the heterossexual family with kids is the "building block" of Society, a kind of people that is innately BETTER than other kinds of people, and thus the government and the law should catter mostly to them. Sailer believes that giving the highest rights and honors to married straight people with kids prduces the "best" Society. But this begs the question: best for whom? Such a Society is obviously not best for all the people who are not heterossexual, not married, and without kids.

A Society that has the individual as the "building block" is more rational than one where the heterossexual family is, for the smple reason that not everyone can be a heterosexual married person with kids, but we all are individuals. From the point of view of utilitarianism, a society where INDIVIDUAL rights are the most sacred maximizes happiness for all. It is simply more rational.

One of the things that I have observed is that consevatives cannot think rationally when it comes to marriage. Maybe because the essence of conservatism is the desire to "conserve" things, and because the institution of marriage is the oldest of all human institutions, existing virtually unchanged since the late Paleolithic Era some 12,000 years ago, conservatives have an irrational attachment to it.

Conservatioves claim that Society would "collapse" if the instition of marriage were altered from it's one-man-one-woman standard. They argue that children would be abandoned or that they would grow with foul characters.

But is this true? Let's analyse this carefully. First of all, adults have a LEGAL obligation to support their children. If you have kids, you should pay for them, whether you are married or not. It would make no difference if a man got tem different women pregant: he has a LEGAL obligation to pay for all of them, and make his time available to all of them.

Nick Diaz said...

PART II

Now would children from alternative families grow up to become morally foul individuals? First of all, morality is something personal: what I find objectionable, you might not find objectionable, and vice-versa. What we can all agree is that harming others is unacceptable, as it violates our rights to physical and psychological integrity. So the question is: Are children from alternative families more likely to harm others? Answer: no evidence for that. Speaking for myself, my parents divorced when I was 6, and I seldom spent time with them. Yet, I have never harmed a flea in my life, and I am at the top 99.7% income bracket in America. I also have two post-graduate degrees. You may not like me, but the fact is that I have never harmed anyone, and as long as I don't harm anyone, you don't have to like me.

The fundamental problem with Steve Sailer's thinking is that he believes in an absolute proposition that doesen't exist. He believes that, if minorities are enfranchised, that this disenfranchises the group of people he prefers and is naturally biased for: heterosexual married people with kids. Giving gay men the right to marry other gay men does not take away straight men's right to marry women. This is a simple concept, but Sailer doesen't see it.

The concept of peaceful co-existence does not exist to Sailer and his fellow conservatives: they are either the conquerors or the vanquished. If minorities are being enfranchised, it is because they are being disenfranchised. What a lousy way of thinking.

ben tillman said...

I checked: the "Not that there's anything wrong with that" Seinfeld episode was aired on 2/11/1993. That may have been the most influential sitcom episode ever.

As for the silly red and pink boxes, I didn't get those from my two putative gay and lesbian facebook friends. The gay guy (a paralegal I worked with) may not even support same-sex marriage, since he made a big show of his support for Chik-Fil-A a while back. I did, however, get one from one of my few Jewish friends, along with a message:

Today is the first day of Passover...freedom is the theme of this holiday. SCOTUS hearing arguments on freedom to marry one's chosen partner couldn't fall in a better week! God's watching, Justices...and BTW, God doesn't think it's a sin even if our ancient ancestors got that one horribly wrong.

Anonymous said...

It's absolutely wacko to compare sodomy to marital love, and to expect society to endorse such same-sex "marriage." Doesn't matter if it is supported by 10% or 90% of the public...

Anonymous said...

But is this true? Let's analyse this carefully. First of all, adults have a LEGAL obligation to support their children. If you have kids, you should pay for them, whether you are married or not. It would make no difference if a man got tem different women pregant: he has a LEGAL obligation to pay for all of them, and make his time available to all of them.

But other people who are ruled by that same LEGAL authority end up having to pick up the tab to some degree or in some fashion.

ben tillman said...

Carol wrote:

I heard part of the oral argument today, where Ginsburg asks why we don't forbid people over 55 to marry, if child rearing is the object. That argument ignores the importance of modeling, or role models. Hetero marriage of all kinds reinforces the model, even where children are not present.

It's important to set an example of a man and woman getting together, getting along despite their obvious differences.


Well said.

Anonymous said...

The concept of peaceful co-existence does not exist to Sailer and his fellow conservatives:

Your entire argument is premised on the LEGAL authority forcing everyone into co-existence as individuals, isn't it? You don't support secession, do you?

Steve Sailer said...

"Suppose I was a social scientist in the 1980, and I wanted to understand the working of power in modern America. To do this, suppose I wanna carry out as massive social experiment. I wanna see how effectively and how quickly the powers-that-be could change public opinion and American politics."

Yup, that's pretty much what happened.

A huge amount of political energy is expended because it's fun to win and more fun to make people you don't like lose.

Anonymous said...

"But gay marriage is much, much more serious issue than what Steve Sailer makes it out to be: it is an issue of human rights. The most cardinal principle of Western Civilization is the principle of equality before the law."

Blah blah blah.

Then, you must be for 'same family marriage' or 'incest marriage'. I mean let's be consistent here. If marriage is whatever any consenting adults make it to be, then a 20 yr old son should marry his 40 yr old mother. Be consistent now.

Also, what if three gays are equally in love with one another. Suppose Bob, Ted, and Richie live in the same house and all sleep in the same bed. Should we allow three to marry? If only two can marry, won't one gay gay be excluded? Oh my, that would such a violation of human rights!!! Should such triophobia be allowed? Why should love/lust be so duocentric?

On a more serious issue, this is not a RIGHTS issue but an eligibility issue. Everything has standards, even public universities. They cannot admit every dummy. Science departments are funded by everyone, even Christian tax payers, but science classes must be about science and teaching material must pass the test of what true science is about. We can't say Creationism should be taught in schools as a human rights issue of 'educational equality'.

What is homosexuality? It's two guys ramming their sex organs into fecal organs. That is disgusting! How is that the biological equal of real sex that produces the miracle of life? Why should such behavior be eligible for recognition for marriage that is supposed to be a biologically and morally meaningful institution?
But if you really think homosexuality isn't disgusting or if you believe that disgusting sexuality should be equally eligible for recognition for marriage, then you MUST be for same family marriage or incest marriage.

And you must be for polygamy too. If free consenting man and two women wanna marry, why not? If a woman wants to marry three men, and they are all consenting, why not? If there's no fixed rules for marriage, then denial of any combination is a denial of human rights.
RIDICULOUS!

And as long as we're all for 'human rights', cities should allow INCEST PRIDE PARADES, FOOD SEX PRIDE PARADES, S&M PRIDE PARADES, BESTIALITY PRIDE PARADES, OBSESSIVE MASTURBATION PRIDE PARADES, ADULTERY PRIDE PARADES, SLUT-GROUPIE PRIDE PARADES(oh yeah, such things exist already!) etc.
I mean how are those things worse than homosexuality?

I'm for tolerance. Let gays do their gay stuff but why I resent Jewish and gay elites forcing us legally and culturally to accept gay crap as being of equal biological and moral value as real sexuality and real marriage.

Just study the sexual organs. Penis belongs in the vagina, not the poophole. And since man and woman produce kids, they should be morally bound to raise the kids they bring into this world. I mean that is a solid definition of marriage biologically and morally. But it's all being blown away by a bunch of subversive elite Jews and selfish vain gays.
But then, I suppose if all of us must go out of our way to support Israel and Jewish interests, I suppose it's only natural that we do the same for gays.
Funny how Jews and gays yammer about equality, but it all comes down to 'special rights and privileges for us'.

This whole nation is being pussyrioted by rotten elites.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

The one thing that keeps so many going is that shared biological project known as "children."

THE ENTIRE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS TO RAISE CHILDREN. There is no other purpose. It's the reason that people give up rights, by entering into a contract that says they will adhere to certain behavior (economic, social, sexual, etc.) The benefit that they gain from the contract is the assurance that the other party won't exercise rights they had before the contract. Marriage is a process of giving up rights for assurance about another person's future activity, ie. a commitment.

And the children is also the reason that the state expends resources to enforce that contract, ie. to get the best environment to create more law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

It is really depressing to have to make these points over and over.

Corn said...

"I don't think they're trying to change gay behavior towards more respectable and restrained lifestyles. I think it's more the case that they're trying to make the debauched gay lifestyle more respectable:"

For a good example of this mentality, iStevers should read Dan Savage's op-ed from last year, in which he said gays should be allowed to marry, but this whole monogamy thing has got to go.

FWIW, I agree with the observation of Beefy Levinson and a few others. Straight women seem just as enthused or moreso about gay marriage than many gays, judging by my facebook feed and a few conversations I've had.

Matt said...

The terms were essentially nonexistent until the early 1970s, after which there were a tiny, relatively stable number of references to "homosexual marriage" for two decades.

They were probably all making fun of it. "Interracial marriage? What's next, gay marriage?" And then everyone had a good laugh, cause holy crap that's stupid. And besides, all the lefties insisted that it would never happen, and we all know that the slippery slope is a fallacy...

Anonymous said...

"Gay Marriage" in Ngram: Media Muscle in action

You mean Media "RAWMUSLGLUTES" in action, right?

Anonymous said...

Many married gays are wildly promiscuous.

A gay married couple I know tried to be monogamous for a few years but gave up saying "now we know why straight people are so miserable!"

Now they host orgies together. Most straights have no idea how wild gays are. A large percentage of out of the closet gay men in large cities spend the entire time from when they leave work Friday to when they return Monday in drug and alcohol fueled orgies.

Gays do A LOT of drugs. Not really sure why that is. Cultural acceptance of hedonism? Trying to escape? Some straight subcultures do a lot of drugs when they are young, but there is no equivalent group of straight middle aged professionals who party anywhere near as hard as the gays.

In fairness, most straight men would be just as promiscuous as gays if it were as easy for them.

vinteuil said...

@ Nick Diaz:

There are a lot of gay people who oppose the institutionalization of gay "marriage" because they see "marriage" as an intrinsically demeaning & exploitative relationship in which they would never *want* to be included.

Just fyi.

Anonymous said...

"Penis belongs in the vagina, not the poophole."

Scalia better include this argument in his opinion.

Anonymous said...

I agree about the sudden emergence gay marriage illustrating the power of the powerful. But it is a little more complicated than if our elites had said, "Let's invent something random and see how fast we can make everyone take to the streets in support of it." While it's true that nobody talked about gay marriage before a little while ago, that fact in itself doesn't prove that legal marriage of gays was only recently something imagined and desired. After all, 40 years ago, it was really frowned upon to be openly gay or even to talk about homosexuality. Legally accepted gay marriage was such a remote possibility that it is hardly surprising to find a derth of discussion about it pre-1970. By the same token, I bet that 200 years ago, Jews in England imagined what life would look like if a Jew were legally allowed to (and did) rule as King. But getting ordinary property and voting rights (or whatever rights Jews lacked that were within reach and seemed pressing) made 10,000X more sense to think and speak about than the idea of a Jewish King.

Still, it's amazing that "gay marriage" is virtually *absent* from all texts prior to the 70s. Well done, Steve.

Anonymous said...

The Indian in NATURAL BORN KILLERS was right: 'Too much TV'.

Anonymous said...

@ Senor Nick Diaz

Gay men who knew themselves to be infected and had sex with others and contaminated them owe and apology to the people they infected and should even be in jail, but the "gay community" does not exist as a single entity with consciousness and thus is not possesed of volition and thus is not subject to being judged by concepts of ethics.

White men who knew themselves to be racist and committed overtly racist acts owe an apology to the people they discriminated against and should be in jail, but the "white community" does not exist as a single entity with consciousness and thus is not possessed of volition and thus is not subject to being judged by concepts of ethics.

Right, Nick?

Luke Lea said...

Nick Diaz - "Maybe because the essence of conservatism is the desire to "conserve" things, and because the institution of marriage is the oldest of all human institutions, existing virtually unchanged since the late Paleolithic Era some 12,000 years ago, conservatives have an irrational attachment to it."

That's irrational?

Anonymous said...

Bless you

Luke Lea said...

Nick Diaz - "So the question is: Are children from alternative families more likely to harm others? Answer: no evidence for that."

In fact no evidence period. The American Pediatric Society (I think it was) said the other day that the data "was not inconsistent with" the idea that children in same sex marriages would do just as well as children in heterosexual marriages. What they failed to note is that there is little or no data at all.

Maybe same-sex marriage is an OK idea. I doubt it. But in either case should we approach this issue a little more slowly? Making it a constitutional right is likely to be an irreversible decision, judicial activism of the worst kind.

Anonymous said...

But it is a little more complicated than if our elites had said, "Let's invent something random and see how fast we can make everyone take to the streets in support of it."

---------

I don't know about that. I suspect that if the elites had made a big fuss about 'same family marriage' while using the media to mock gays, all the madness today would be about kinsexuals.
Suppose there were fun sitcoms about incest couples. Suppose incest was wrapped in rainbow colors. And every kinsexual on TV was full of smiles. Suppose there had been a concerted effort to root out incestophobes by featuring them as unevolved bullies and neanderthals. Suppose there were kinsexual studies in colleges.
Suppose there were lots of rich and powerful kinsexuals in high places while most homos were hillbillies going 'squeeeaal like a pig' with little money and power.

Michael Corleone says in GODFATHER II that history tells us that 'you can kill anyone'. I'm convinced the elites can make anyone believe anything. Why did so many Chinese bind their feet even though it was soooo stupid. Cuz it just became the norm spread by the elites.
Why do so many Koreans cruelly kill and eat dogs? It's been associated with national pride and resisting 'cultural imperialism'. It's sick and disgusting, but there you go.
No one really takes a hard look at reality.
Why do so many americans care about whales--even ones that are not facing extinction--but feel nothing for pigs that are killed in the millions though pigs are just as intelligent as whales and dogs? Because whales have been made cool but pigs are just bacon.
People are sheep.

Why do even liberals who say they don't judge people on the basis for creed or whatever say they will not vote for a Muslim for president? 98% of Americans polled said they wouldn't, so on that matter, libs are no different from cons. Why do the same people who bitch about McCarthyism see nothing wrong with KKK hysteria at Oberlin and political correct blacklisting of people like Rick Sanchez?

I'm convinced that most people cannot think for themselves and have nothing like real core values. They are 'thinking' reeds indeed. They just bend with the wind.

People believe and feel what is POINTED OUT FOR THEM. They don't try to think for themselves.

On facebook, you still have liberals going on as if Trayvon Martin was a helpless baby killed by a KKK thug.

vinteuil said...

@anon 3/26/13, 4:22 PM

"What is homosexuality?"

Well, the best going hyothesis, so far as I can determine, is Gregory Cochran's "gay germ" theory.

It's not entirely clear what all consequences follow upon acceptance of that theory.

Anonymous said...

One of the big foundations brags somewhere how it blew a million dollars on gay rights back in 1986, making it a trend setter.

Here's the current Ford Foundation page:

http://www.fordfoundation.org/issues/human-rights/advancing-lgbt-rights

Big Bill said...

Gay marriage is going to change everything. Once "true love" or "sexual orientation" is the only test for marriage (i.e. all you have to say is "I want to marry you") then how are we to deal with polygamy among our Muslim and Mormon citizens as well as bisexuals?

The accommodation in Europe and the Ottoman Empire in a more multicultural era (and in Israel and Islamic countries today) was to let each faith/ethnic community make its own rules. Pick your community and live by their laws.

And the rules, of necessity, extended (and will extend in America) well beyond marriage to child custody, dower, bride price (lobola), child support, alimony, inheritance, grounds for divorce, and countless other things that we now take for granted, since (up until now) we followed European Christian law.

How can a state say "cheating" is grounds for divorce in a polygamous marriage? A polygamous marriage is formalized/legalized cheating by its very nature.

Either that, or we will go with a purely contractual system in which marriage and its obligations are defined in a marriage contract that you can write however you see fit.

Either approach--either accommodation to "diversity" in marital relations--will gut white feminist control over marriage and their attempts to standardize marriage as a one-size-fits-all, monogamous Christian-ish arrangement in which men have no power and authority.

The initial changes will probably be extensions of current legal efforts: look for Jews and Muslims to keep (1) pushing for enforcement of Jewish and Muslim law by the secular courts, or (2) pushing for "opt-out" provisions like alternative (i.e. binding) religious court marital dispute resolution.

Anonymous said...

Gays aren't the force behind the marriage push, liberal Jews, the "hostile elite" are. They provide the funding, define the debate, and shut people down when they don't agree. By themselves gays would not be able to create any more waves than polygamists.

Classic example: gay marriage was passed in New York after a couple Wall Street Jews bribed some legislators.

sober said...

Gay Marriage (a contradiction in terms) is a giant FU to the church. That's why the NYT and it's ethnic backers are so heavily involved in this. It's just the latest campaign against Christianity. Marriage is a central part of the Cristian faith. Jesus compared his relation to the church with that of a loving husband to his wife.

Luke Lea said...

This is for Nick Diaz:

My concern is for the future of our civilization and its liberal institutions. It's all about the children and grandchildren who will be manning those institutions in the future. I believe that the purpose of marriage is to provide cultural, social, and, yes, legal support for intact biological families as the best, and only proven, institution for the nurture and acculturation of children. There is abundant evidence that single parents cannot do this job well. There is abundant evidence that broken families cannot do it either. There is no evidence that gay families, which by definition are not the biological parents of their children (at most one of them might be) can do this job either. Exceptions don't count.

Cultures are not self-propagating things. They have to be transmitted from generation to generation. That is especially true of our democratic traditions and liberal ideals, including ideas about the rights of the individual, civil rights, individual liberties, and the rule of law.

These values have to be taught, primarily by families in intimate day to day contact. Schools can't do it alone. (Look at the ghettos.) A terrible human price has been paid to establish these traditions and to build a modern world in which they can be realized. It would be a tragedy if we were to throw it all away through carelessness and ignorance. Especially for our descendants, our posterity, whoever they might be.

There are many generations yet to be born but only one that is alive right now. It's not all about us. We have responsibilities.

Luke Lea said...

JeremiahJohnbalaya said it better than me:

"THE ENTIRE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS TO RAISE CHILDREN. There is no other purpose. It's the reason that people give up rights, by entering into a contract that says they will adhere to certain behavior (economic, social, sexual, etc.) The benefit that they gain from the contract is the assurance that the other party won't exercise rights they had before the contract. Marriage is a process of giving up rights for assurance about another person's future activity, ie. a commitment."

Luke Lea said...

In my opinion the biggest problem with the idea of homosexuals setting social policy is their presentism: without children (even if married) they have no real interest in the future. They may say they do. But without children the fact is they do not. And it shows.

Pink Arrow Gal said...

gay news and other social leftism is a good distraction from economic leftism.

If young kids focused on economic leftism, their energies would hurt the pocketbooks of the rich folks who own and control the media, hollywood, the govt etc etc etc. So gay rights is 'safe' leftism.

So those gay rights stories bubble up to the top, and get public exposure. These stories pass through the ideological filters put in place by the rich and powerful over decades, just as beneficial animal mutations are selected over generations, so too are 'safe' leftism ideas that do hurt fat wallets.

UNSAFE leftism, such as the fact that under obamacare most americans will be paid hefty subsidies to pay for healthcare, these sorts of stories do not pass through elite-centric ideological filter put in place by the rich, and so they get little public exposure. These stories are selected for extinction.

Similarly, homo sapiens selected out certain behavioral and physical characteristics in their domestic animals.

It's not a conspiracy; it's an ecosystem.

Nick Diaz said...

Anonymous 4:17 PM

"Your entire argument is premised on the LEGAL authority forcing everyone into co-existence as individuals, isn't it? You don't support secession, do you?"

Your phrasing of the issue is extremely tendencious.

Yes, the government should enforce individual rights, which means not allowing any type of person being harassed, suffer violence or treated as second-clas citizens for possesing characteristics that other people find objectionable - but harmless.

The legal system should be intolerant towards intolerance. That is much better than it being tolerant towards intolerance.

Like I said, the best way to maximize happiness for all, from na utilitarian perspective, is to have tolerance towards all kinds of peoples and lifestyles. Enforcing your lifestyle as the "ideal" may make life ideal for you, but it doesen't make life for those who dislike your lifestyle. With what moral authority you make the value-judgement to assume what is best for millions of people? Or as Voltaire once famously said:

"I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right of saying it."

Because people disagree on how to live life, the only way to maximize happiness for all is to tolerate all kinds of lifestyles as long as such lifestyles are harmful to others.

And why would you want to succeed from a Society that tolerates gay marriage? If they are not harming you, taking your Money or bothering in any way, why do you want to keep them down and second-class citizens? Think of what you are saying. You are saying that you don~t like them on a VISCERAL level. What are you gona do when you have your new nation where gay marriage is prohibited and someone disagrees with you on another issue? Will you succeed again and found a new nation, and so on and so forth? Because conservatives also disagree. Consider pornography. Conservatives are all pretty much against gay marriage, but they disagree on this. Some are radically against it, while others are avid consumers of it. When you get your new nation, will you secceed if they ban porn, for instance and found yet a new one? People must tolerate each other because we have diffrent personalities and we will NEVER find common ground in everything.

^

Anonymous said...

>THE ENTIRE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS TO RAISE
>CHILDREN. There is no other purpose.

What about the purpose of advancing a political agenda, a purpose 100% of gay marriage advocates have in mind? What about the purpose of establishing a committed, monogamous relationship in a hostile and lonely world, the purpose of maybe 0.001% of marriage equality supporters? Those are two purposes for marriage that you didn't think of.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Gay Marriage (a contradiction in terms) is a giant FU to the church.

A good point. It is amazing how many discussions of marriage with a leftist come back to their assumption that it is fundamentally a religious (and therefore to be scorned and destroyed) institution.

It's not fundamentally religious. It's fundamentally about enforcement/expectation of the marriage contract in order to best raise children.

Big Bill said...

Diaz: "But gay marriage is much, much more serious issue than what Steve Sailer makes it out to be: it is an issue of human rights."

Absolutely. And what about human rights for polygamists? And what about human rights for bisexuals? And what about human rights for Muslims who want to enter into a temporary marriage, "mutah"? And what about human rights for guys that want to make anonymous sperm donations (using the natural applicator)?

Nick, in essence, supports marriage by voluntary contract. Of course, when it gets too kinky (mutah, maybe?) he will say "Unequal bargaining power! We cannot permit women to enter into these types of agreements because they really don't know what they are getting into. We know what is best for them. They only THINK they want to consent to such a one-sided contract! Our Harvard research shows that 72.68% of women regret these marriages! We must ban temporary marriages!"

Or, as Larry Auster puts it, he will make the classic liberal unprincipled exception. It's all about "human rights!" and "self-determination!" until it reaches his personal gag limit, at which point "self-determination" and "human rights" will fly right out the window.

But by then, of course, it will be too late. The legal principle that one's lust is all that matters and that the courts cannot force an outmoded oppressive (aka Christian) religious tradition on everyone will have been established. We already see the mainstreaming of polygamy in Hollywood. How long do you think unprincipled liberal exceptions will hold back the tide?

Current (ie common law derived from England) law holds that a contract between husband and wife AFTER marriage is not enforceable. Why? Historical oppression of women by men and the frailty of women as the weaker childbearing sex. But when two bull dykes marry or two sodomites marry who is it that is supposed to be oppressed? And anyway, isn't the idea that women are"the weaker sex" outmoded and sexist? BOOM! That law is gone!

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer said...

Yup, that's pretty much what happened.

A huge amount of political energy is expended because it's fun to win and more fun to make people you don't like lose.


And that is not the worst of it. This huge amount of political energy expended for gays, (less than 2% of the population), to marry is not even being blamed on them. It is being blamed on those who oppose it.

My neighbor has a typical reaction to all this controversy over this issue. He blames the GOP and the religious right for wasting America's time and energy on gays. He says that America has huge problems and we should not be wasting our time discussing gay marriage and holding endless state referenda.

I pointed out that we have not had gay marriage for a couple thousand years and that some radicals introduced it into our political arena only twenty ago, and that they should be blamed. I said if they had never pushed for gay marriage, no one would even know what gay marriage is let alone fight over it.

He really did not have a response. But it annoys me that the people who introduced this issue get away scot-free while those who opposed it are getting all the blame for the expenditure of all that political juice.

Darwin's Sh*tlist said...

The fact that so many gays came out over the past 25 years, often somewhat involuntarily because of AIDS, has been the biggest driver of the change in social attitudes.

The activists are right: once the person whose rights you're discussing is a relative, friend or co-worker, it's a lot easier to be sympathetic to them.

What they leave off is that the previous "typical gay" they had in mind was the creepy dude hanging out in the rest stop bathroom off the interstate.

Corn said...

"In fact no evidence period. The American Pediatric Society (I think it was) said the other day that the data "was not inconsistent with" the idea that children in same sex marriages would do just as well as children in heterosexual marriages. What they failed to note is that there is little or no data at all."

Luke's right, there is little to no data. And if anyone *cough Mark Regnerus cough* releases a study that doesn't glowingly endorse gay parentage, they become a subject of the 15 minute hate.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget another reason for gay marriage - old gays marrying and getting a spouse visa for their third world twinkies.

Shouting Thomas said...

Yes, Steve, it has been a massive campaign of scapegoating straight men.

The usual.

Thanks for saying it. Damned if it will do any good.

Anonymous said...

So you're saying if gay people didn't get/spread AID's you'd be for gay marriage?

If their promiscuity was something they should be ashamed of, then why prevent their right to marriage, which theoretically would slow the promiscuity down?

Cute argument. Can't say it makes a lot of sense. I'm sure it'll be a big hit at Taki's though.

Anonymous said...

"He really did not have a response. But it annoys me that the people who introduced this issue get away scot-free while those who opposed it are getting all the blame for the expenditure of all that political juice."

That kind of s--- like your neighbor pulls galls me. Last time I checked gay marriage or gun control weren't exactly conservative ideas, but we're the ones parading out the "distractions" in front of the voters.

Chubby Ape said...

This essay over at First Things makes a strong series of arguments against gay marriage and adoption:


Homosexual Marriage, Parenting, and Adoption

The Chief Rabbi of France says what we often forget to say.
Gilles Bernheim


People may not know but there's a huge popular movement in France against a proposed gay marriage law now in the works. Check out the video and pictures of last Sunday's march in Paris to get a sense of the size of the opposition to gay marriage over there.

Anonymous said...

One good thing that might come of legalization of 'gay marriage': What will the next big issue be for liberals? How many more halfassed issues can they get masses of idiots get all riled up over?
Even Italians got sick of Mussolini and even Chinese got tired of Mao.
At some point, hype-fatigue has to set in. This could be the last wad shot by American liberalism. In fact, they're going nuts about this because they no longer have any big issues.
Sure, they'll find more excuse to scream KKK and 'war on women', but even that will get lamer as there are many more women in college and and there's no real KKK anywhere in sight.
And it seems like libs got eggs on their face with Trayvon Martin, and American public is swaying back to supporting gun rights.

It's like many conservatives are not buying us-vs-them 'war on terror' shit anymore. It seemed like 'war on terror' was gonna strengthen the new right, but it fizzed out, especially cuz conservatives got what they called for: more wars.
If libs get what they want with 'gay marriage', they've lost their last major cause. It's gonna be hard to keep cooking up new ones.

At the very least, gays are talented and colorful and creative, which makes them hip.
But I just don't see liberals getting all too excited about equality for illegals. How many white liberals come out to join Mexican pride parades?

FWG said...

Today is Gay Day. I should've taken a day off from Facebook.

Anonymous said...

Though Sailer didn't like HUNGER GAMES, it got one thing right: people can be manipulated to feel and believe anything.
Though the movie aint much, the series of scenes where the talk show host interviews the contestants was so right on the mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gW9hNlN_9s

People really are like this. They are so swept up in the hype and buzz that they become utterly ignorant of their hypocrisies and blindspots.

In the movie, the kids are gonna be put to some horrible test and most of them are gonna be killed. The audience is filled with bloodlust and just dying to see the slaughter. Yet, they also feel sincere sympathy for the contestants and root for them and consider themselves wonderful people for having such soft hearts. They condemn what they celebrate and celebrate what they condemn but don't see any contradiction.

We live in a country where liberals dominate filthy porn and horrible rap music(which calls women hos), but the 'war on women' is all waged by evil white conservative males.
We have Hollywood promoting the culture of mindless violence through movies like DJANGO UNCHAINED but preaching to us about the dangers of gun violence.

But there are blindspots all around. Conservatives like Ann Coulter attack Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation while overlooking the fact that Dixiecrats became the new core of the GOP.

Rush Limbaugh praises Walmart to high heaven while ripping on 'Chicoms' as evil commies--while overlooking the fact that Walmart wouldn't be possible if not for business with the chicoms.

Liberals who foam at the mouth about BIRTH OF THE NATION and SEARCHERS--so racist!!--have no problem with TAKEN which is the same thing, except Muslims are the kidnapping rapists of white women.

Liberals who will laugh their heads at all sorts of ethnic jokes will suddenly clam up when they hear jokes about blacks and gays and scream 'racism' and 'homophobia'.

Most people get swept up in the hype and buzz, and it's like the cords of logical/moral consistency get severed all too easily.

So, the audience in HUNGER GAMES can both mindlessly enjoy the slaughter but also sympathize and root for the kids sent to kill one another. And they really see and feel no inconsistency.
But then, just consider the Senate Committee hearing with Chuck Hagel. Republican senators all act like shameless whores of AIPAC and then demand Hagel to name some examples of how Jews control America.

I mean it's like political Alice in Wonderland.

Edo Lasani said...

The hatred for Reagan comes from several parts. First is the delusion that the USA can solve any problem, medical or not, by throwing a massive amount of money at it. Second was the culture change from the hedonistic 70's to the only semi hedonistic 80's. Third is psychological projection.

FWG said...

Gay marriage is an example of the Overton Window in effect.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

>THE ENTIRE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS TO RAISE
>CHILDREN. There is no other purpose.

What about the purpose of advancing a political agenda, a purpose 100% of gay marriage advocates have in mind? What about the purpose of establishing a committed, monogamous relationship in a hostile and lonely world, the purpose of maybe 0.001% of marriage equality supporters? Those are two purposes for marriage that you didn't think of.


What is the point of your two exceptions to the basic concept? I'm talking about the state-enforced marriage contract. That thing which exists to prevent you from exercising rights once you enter it. The thing which society and the state expends effort and resources to enforce. That institution exists as the best way to raise children in stable, committed families. Any other "reason" for marriage is just nonsense. Pick some word other than marriage.

Mr. Anon said...

The campaign for "gay marriage" is an assault on the concept of the normal. Homosexuals are not normal (in that aspect of their lives), and they know it. Some people can handle that fine - "hey, I'm weird in certain respects, but I can deal." As long as society tolerates them, which by the 1970s, it mostly did, then they need not have a problem.

But there are those people who are never happy bein outsiders, and their solution to being outside is to knock down the walls so that everyone is an outsider. They wish to undefine the very concept of normal. If they can't be normal, then nobody shall be so.

Prof. Woland said...

The biggest beneficiaries of marriage are children. it is what ties them to their fathers both legally and socially. Without those ties men don't commit and stick around and provide. Mothers don't need marriage to tie them to their children either biologically or culturally but they sure need men's resources, and so herein lies the dilemma. Gay marriage, like no-fault divorce, the automatic awarding custody of children to women, and the financial rape of men from divorce, is simply one more nail in the coffin of the institution.

As far as I am concerned, the sooner the whole institution of marriage 2.0 fails, the sooner we can get rid of state marriage altogether. All it has become is a financial guarantee imposed by the state that the man will be the primary payer in the event of dissolution (the state will be secondary) and that women will still control the children if they really want to.

We don't need the state to confirm parenthood anymore because of the ability to use DNA testing and since everybody is now equal, we certainly don't need alimony. If people are religious they can get married in a church, assuming one will marry them, but it won't be binding on the state or vice versa. If the state insists on regulating marriage they can simply issue marriage contracts they way they issue business partnerships now. Of course nihilistic gays along with the liberals and feminists they are in league with will hate this not because they are so sexually libertarian as they always claim but precisely because it liberates the rest of us from them.

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

"I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right of saying it.""

Just because Voltaire said this, does not make it a good idea. When broadly defined, it is actually a stupid maxim. It may make sense to occasionally stick up for someone else's rights, as an act of elightened self-interest.

But to apply this principal generally is foolish. It is an invitation to die in other people's wars. Some people just don't know when to shut up. If they end up getting a beating, it's really nobody's fault but their own.

Larry Flynt, the sleazebag pornographer, made himself into somekind of 1st amendment martyr, but all he really wanted to do was shock and offend people, and indulge his basest desires. Defending his rights does not serve to defend my own, it only wastes my time and effort in the defense of a worthless man. I wouldn't take a bullet for the likes of him.

Mr. Anon said...

"Nick Diaz said...

But this is not the issue at all. The issue is that gay men don't owe an "apology" for AIDS because there was never a conscious decision by the gay community to do anything."

Perhaps you are too young to remember the 80s. I am, unfortunately, not so young. Gay activists routinely blamed everybody for AIDS - TV executives who would not air condom ads, normal middle-class squares, the Pope, Ronald Regan - they blamed everybody, that is, except the people who spread it - promiscuous homosexuals. It was spread in the bath-houses by men having twenty or thirty anonymous sex partners in a single night (see Laurie Garrett's "The Coming Plague", for example). The apology that Steve was referring to would be to straight, normal society for blaming their problems, created by them, on us.

People who argue as you do don't seem to understand the implications of "gay marriage". If it is legalized - if the concept that any consenting adults can enter into any domestic arrangement they want and have it recognized as marriage - then a variety of things, some of which you may not like at all, will perforce happen. Polygamy will become legal. There will no longer be any argument against it. Incest (between adults) will become legal - no remaining argument against it.

And if the left is able to reduce the age of consent - as many of them wish to do - then pederasty will become legal too.

Society may well have rules, customs, and taboos for a reason. They are not arbitrary. You young guys need to realize that the world did not begin with you.

Svigor said...

The big issue in my view is estate tax. Man on Woman marriages allow the estate to be transferred to the surviving spouse tax free. I am not sure about increased basis on the estate.

With homosexual marriages there the estate is handled as if the estate were passed to a child or other person. Basis is stepped up after paying taxes.

Additionally there are pension and social security increases for the survivor of a Man with Woman marriage.

I have never seen this discussed anywhere. But you are talking big money as gays typically have more money than non New York Times readers.


I don't think that's the big issue. If it was, this probably would've been settled by compromise (civil unions, whatever) already. The issue is elevating degenerate "homosexual marriage" to equal status with actual marriage.

It's basically a huge liberal shit-test for core America. They're pushing it because they feel like it.

3/26/13, 3:50 PM

There's the long version.

Skipped riiight over Dick Niaz's post.

Today is the first day of Passover...freedom is the theme of this holiday.

Funny, I thought celebrating G-d murdering outgroup infants en masse is the theme of Passover. Do I have my holidays mixed up?

The concept of peaceful co-existence does not exist to Sailer and his fellow conservatives

Lemme guess: Dick Niaz? Like I said, I skipped rrriiiight over it. What a $%@(. Libs are hatred of peaceful co-existence personified.

"But gay marriage is much, much more serious issue than what Steve Sailer makes it out to be: it is an issue of human rights. The most cardinal principle of Western Civilization is the principle of equality before the law."

You guys are determined to make me read this idiot's stupidity, aren't you?

Homosexuals have always had the right to get married. They don't want to get married; that's kinda baked into the homosexual cake. Now they want to redefine "marriage" to suit them. The idea that they want equal protection is laughably absurd.

Gay marriage is going to change everything. Once "true love" or "sexual orientation" is the only test for marriage (i.e. all you have to say is "I want to marry you") then how are we to deal with polygamy among our Muslim and Mormon citizens as well as bisexuals?

Muslims are going to have to suck it, because there's no way in hell the elite is going to let Mormons do polygamy. Mormons are legalized polygamy and sex-selection tech away from overrunning the planet.

P.S., the idea of homosexual males raising children is monstrous. The idea of homosexual females raising children is just bad.

Anonymous said...

"Today is Gay Day."

The American Left. From May Day to Gay Day.

Anonymous said...

As for AIDS, it can transmitted from anyone to anyone, from blood transfusions to vaginal sex.

True, but when it first hit the USA it was actually called GRID for good reason.

Lionel said...

So this generation of 18-29 year olds that we are told supports gay marriage 70% has lived its entire news/information conscious lives in the era of the abrupt spike in mentions of gay marriage that started in 1994.

Reg C├Žsar said...

News flash: Steve is no longer the only pundit aware that polygamy is a disaster for most of the male population. This is from John Corvino's book-length debate with Maggie Gallagher:

Polygamy is the most common form of marriage historically, and there are people who practice it today even in the United States-- in states that adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for Fundamentalist Mormons and other religious communities. Moreover, there are serious people, including some prominent pro-gay academics, advocating for polygamy and other family forms. Does my position logically commit me to accepting polygamy as well?

I don't think so. Remember, the "mutual-lifelong caregiving" case is a prima facie case, one that can be revised after examining the relative costs and benefits. After examining most of the major arguments, we have yet to see any serious costs from extending marriage to same-sex couples. By contrast, we have thousands of years of human history demonstrating the typical costs of polygamy. Polygamy tends almost always to be polygyny, where one man has multiple wives. (By contrast, polyandry-- one wife with multiple husbands-- is quite rare.) The usual result is a sexist and classist society where high-status males acquire multiple wives while lower-status males become virtually unmarriageable.
[emphasis mine]

Note that, as with incest, they always bring up straight polygamy, not the same-sex kind. At some level they must realize there really is no difference between gay plural unions, or gay consanguinous unions for that matter, and any other "normal" gay couple.

Other than the man-woman requirement, can anyone come up with a non-risible reason for prohibiting identical twins from marrying? I don't think one exists.

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-from-sexual-outlaws-to-sexual-in-laws/

With jelly-kneed conservatives like this, who needs libs?

"Now when it comes to gay marriage, our point of departure is that, whether you like it or not, it’s coming. As a democracy, America is basically a common sense country. That is, the laws of the land must reflect the common sense of the people. It’s increasingly clear that in the past few years the country has been taking a hard look at the question of gay marriage. And the more people have looked, the more they have come to the conclusion that it should be allowed."

Total BS. American common sense overwhelmingly opposed it. But elite media force-fed this radical idea with non-stop propaganda, indoctrination, hysteria, blacklisting, tar and feathering, lawsuits, banning businesses like chick fil a, shaming beauty pageants who stand for real marriage, etc.

But Mead. like gutless Murray, just wants to be invited to cocktail parties and rub shoulders with the rich.

The rise of 'gay marriage' is the destruction of common sense by endless machinations of the elite media ans Wall Street funding.

"The climate of bigotry, brutality and violence that so many gay people have had to live with in the past was clearly an evil. It’s a terrible thing when teenagers are driven to suicide by fears that their own families will reject them over homosexuality."

Yeah maybe, but weren't privileged gays chummy with the oppressive and exploitative aristocratic class for 1000s of yrs?

Anonymous said...

"One good thing that might come of legalization of 'gay marriage': What will the next big issue be for liberals? How many more halfassed issues can they get masses of idiots get all riled up over? "


Ivan Massow, a gay conservative in the UK :

"Those same shire people didn’t agree that a man and a man should live together. They are always one step behind the curve unfortunately. But there aren’t many more reforms for them to tolerate. There’s just nothing left after this. When we can get this last thing through the gate I can’t see anything else, any other slights on their lifestyle or their beliefs that they have to tolerate."


It's very much in the vein of "this is the last territorial claim I have to make in Europe".

In the same edition of the Daily Telegraph :

"The idea that mothers rather than fathers should take charge of raising children needs to be "shattered", a minister said today."

Conatus said...

When it comes to gay marriage my line is "Having s**t on the tip of your dick is not a civil right."

I worked next to a gay guy in the early eighties. He died of AIDS around '84. He would tell me stories about 'the baths' in DC where guys would have five partners a night and some of them they did not even know what the other guy looked like! It was in the semi dark with cans of Crisco laying around.
That is the essence of male homosexuality, it is all about sex, all the time.
The women are different, to generalize and to stereotype, a lot of the women switch because guys are all about sex all the time. I can see the women staying married but not the men.

Anonymous said...

The Left doesn't seem to understand that institutions have functions. The function of the police is to prevent the breaking of the law, the function of schools is to educate the young, the function of hospitals is to heal the sick, and the function of marriage is to prevent the problems that result from the production of children.

Cail Corishev said...

American common sense overwhelmingly opposed [gay marriage].

Yeah, that's just stupid. The first time common-sense Americans heard the idea, they laughed. They probably laughed the next dozen times too. Then when it wouldn't go away, they said, "No, that's a stupid idea, but maybe you have a point about a gay man not being able to visit his dying partner in the hospital, so we could allow some sort of 'civil union' that would give them those rights they're complaining about without redefining something as important as marriage." But that compromise wasn't enough, so they had to sit through another several years of TV shows designed to soften their resistance further until they caved completely.

The thing about gay marriage is that it just doesn't affect most people in any obvious way. An ordinary citizen may think it's gross, but it doesn't affect him directly, so he's not inspired to fight hard against it the way he might against higher taxes or war. So if he can make himself look good to his liberal friends by adopting the right attitude on this subject, he figures why not? It's not going to lower his property values, change what his children are being taught in school (they're already taught it's a good thing), or cause any clear harm to anyone he cares about. It just doesn't seem important enough to go to the wall over.

That probably explains why the populace has caved so quickly on this issue, as opposed to something that does affect many people directly, like gun rights.

Lionel said...

Was thinking about my own comment last night that the entire information-conscious lifetime of the 18-29 year olds was within this 1994-present spike of mentions of "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage" and these are the people we are told are 70% supportive.

What else could they think? You'd really have to be either a very independent thinker or very religious not to support gay marriage in that generation. Especially the last 10 years, the news media has kept opposition to gay marriage out of the public discourse.

Chris Wallace had Gary Bauer and a pro-gay marriage Republican, Nicole Wallace, on Fox News Sunday and Bauer was undoubtedly the stronger debater, as little as he was allowed to say. Wallace had pablum, goody-2-shoes pablum. Later, Newt Gingrich dismantled the argument that the 14th amendment requires gay marriage in 2 sentences: The amendment's been around for 150 years. It didn't require gay marriage in 150 years but it does now. (The other panelists had no defense of their ridiculous 14th amendment proposition.)

As other commenters have said, its an exercise in power and probably a very destructive exercise.

europeasant said...

"From negroes to blacks to african americans"

I am going to keep it simple.
From now on just Africans.

Anonymous said...



"The climate of bigotry, brutality and violence that so many gay people have had to live with in the past was clearly an evil. It’s a terrible thing when teenagers are driven to suicide by fears that their own families will reject them over homosexuality."



Ahh, the crocodile tears of the poor dears.

Of course normal guys would be more likely to pursue suicide if they had to spend their lives taking it from another guy.

Seriously, people get rejected by their families all all the time for good reasons and for bad, and they manage not to commit suicide. Why are gays so fragile?

Anonymous said...


"Someone should write a book on this subject as a study of power.
If you control the buttons of propaganda, social shaming, glamour, and legality, you can make people go nuts over anything."



Most books on the topic use the example of the Nazis and the Holocaust. People are basically depraved and in general can be convinced of anything. Period.

Atheists might use the example of religion.

Anonymous said...

@ Nick Diaz

"What we can all agree is that harming others is unacceptable, as it violates our rights to physical and psychological integrity."

What in the history books have you read or what in the nightly news have you seen that indicates all do or should agree on this? Even if you admit that not 'all' have agreed, if you say that all should agree on this, aren't you suggesting some sort of objective moral standard exists (i.e. the very thing which you are otherwise denying)?

The typical response of our relativistic age: there are no objective morals at all that apply to everyone, well, except the few that I prefer, and anyone who violates those is a wicked, wicked homo sapien ('fairness', 'don't discriminate' are the most common examples today).

We are losing the capacity to think clearly. I have no doubt that my great-grandparents and great-grandparent who merely were farmers could nonetheless think more clearly than most people today, some of whom have been college educated. And I include myself in this - a lowering tide sinks all boats.

Anonymous said...

So, gays are 'evolving' to embracing marriage and straights are 'evolving' to embracing 'gay marriage'?

Funny how that works.

Anonymous said...

"Steve is no longer the only pundit aware that polygamy is a disaster for most of the male population. This is from John Corvino's book-length debate with Maggie Gallagher"

But 'new polygamy' can have bunch a guys marry and share the same woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1Mnvdj24I

The Hammond brothers were ahead of their time.

Svigor said...

The usual result is a sexist and classist society where high-status males acquire multiple wives while lower-status males become virtually unmarriageable. [emphasis mine]

Sex-selection tech will iron that lil problem out. Would-be polygynous society just uses sex-selection tech to produce a high female:male birth ratio. To balance their society, their rule could be "no higher f:m ratio among spouses in your family than among children." I.e., if a polygynist wants that 7th wife he has to get his daughter:son ratio up to 7:1 (and daughters who leave the polygynous society come off the books).

The Left doesn't seem to understand that institutions have functions. The function of the police is to prevent the breaking of the law, the function of schools is to educate the young, the function of hospitals is to heal the sick, and the function of marriage is to prevent the problems that result from the production of children.

Reminds me of Robocop II when OCP gave Murphy hundreds of stupid little PC rules to follow, producing Schizocop.

Anonymous said...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=396033630494379&set=a.172989996132078.35033.138533429577735&type=1

More proof that people can be made to believe anything.
Iraq War was a bust, and we are financially bust. Israel has 300 illegal nukes, and Iran poses no threat to us.

But if Obama calls for war on Iran, a whopping 64% of Americans will support it, libs and cons together.

Con leaders are now joining libs to ram American Conservatism in the ass, and majority of cons will join majority of libs in ramming Iran in the ass with all sorts of missiles that will kill many innocent lives.

Hail said...

Looking at data compiled on Pollingreport.com on Gay Marriage over the years:

The earliest I can find is an oddly-worded question from Gallup which ran from '96-'06. It was:

"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

1996: 27% Support for Gay Marriage
2006: 39% Support for Marriage

ABC/Wash-Post poll:
Gay Marriage Support, 2003-2013

There is a big gap in polling between 2006 and 2009. These years seem to be the turning point: Support was in the 30-40% range 2003-2006, but all of a sudden was 49% in spring 2009. I'd conjecture that the rise of Obama is responsible. That was the side of victory, and the non-politically-minded portion of the population said, "okay, this is the way things are now".

Anonymous said...

these are the people we are told are 70% supportive

Of course let's don't forget that the American public has no clue that the actual size of the homosexual population is less than 2 percent. I imagine if they were actually a quarter of the population, my views might be different too.

From a Gallup poll in 2011:
U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian. More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.

David said...

Penis as Weapon

E. Michael Jones observes that Jewish subversives' crowbar of choice has changed over the past 20 years, from blacks to homosexuals. To oppose the homosexing of America is now considered proof of one's Total Evil - of being Absolutely Wrong (AW) in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons that being anti-black and anti-Semitic is AW. The revolution of the culture-critiquers continues.

"The homosexing of America" does not mean lightening the loafers of every man, woman, and child in the country, an impossibility. It means manufacturing consent for regarding sex per se as the indiscriminate and short-range hole-hopping most characteristic of male homosexuality. Manufacturing that consent is the purpose of norming the merely notional "relationships" or "families" intrinsic to homosexual community (gay and lesbian) as contrasted with relationships rooted in reproduction. The latter are to be cast into a conceptual and psychological ghetto, perforce undermining the cultural ecosystem necessary for procreation and successful childrearing. As such, the homosexing of America is not more than a late or terminal stage of the Sexual Revolution, which was (and is) a deliberate infliction of an injury on the biological cohesiveness of the mostly gentile population.

For the revolutionists' avant-garde are Jews*. And they are aware that their revolution isn't "good for Jews"; Dennis Prager's "Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality" shows that fairly convincingly. It's Prager's contention that Western Civilization owes its positive development to a Jewish revolution in morals. It's Jones' contention that the latest such revolution is aimed at undoing Western Civ or colonizing it.

* A small and uncontroversial recent example: the key sponsors of the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act are Gary Ackerman, Howard Berman, John Adler, and Shelly Berkley.

[Republished from my blog w/ slight changes.]

David said...

Homosexuality and Libertarianism and modern "culture":

Pathological narcissism at its most extreme.

Link.

Anonymous said...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/27/what-classic-sitcoms-taught-us-about-gay-rights.html

Brave New World is here. Americans get their 'values' from TV sitcoms.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of fairness and equality, what is the makeup of gays in the media and entertainment? It appears they are vastly overrepresented in elite institutions and indeed are favored for promotion and privilege. With so many gays so overrepresented in powerful institutions using mainstream culture to spread their views and 'values', it's not surprising that so many celebrity-culture addicted Americans are falling for this.

Though it's called mainstream media, it appears that most of MSM is really just the preserve of gays and urban elites hired and promoted by six corporations that own 95% of the media. So much for equality and serving the people.

helene edwards said...

Scalia missed an easy softball in oral argument:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when -­when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?

JUSTICE SCALIA: ..don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became
unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -­as a culture determined ...

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

He should have said, "but didn't Prop 8's passage mean there is no such "culture" yet?

Anonymous said...

You need money and leadership to organize an pro-real-marriage rally, but the money and leadership are no longer forthcoming from GOP whores and American conservatives.

Just like Sierra Club changed its position on immigration to chase after money, same is happening with the GOP.
GOP now just wants to be the gay partner of the Dem party.

Anonymous said...

Scholars wonder how Mao could have gotten so many Chinese swept up in mass mania of the Great Leap Forward. It wasn't just coercion. Chinese masses, despite 1000s of yrs of experience in agriculture,
bought into the fantasy that they could catch up to the US in several yrs by eating in vast mess halls and building backyard steel furnaces.

Now, we know. Hype and hysteria can change any minds.
Communists used to have mass rallies and sing songs. Now, we have mass or ass rallies by hommunists, and all the suckers for the sheer spectacle of it all.

But then, another factor is the trivilization of American society, culture, and values with celebrity culture and junk culture. For most Americans, watching TV sitcoms and talkshows IS culture. Even so-called educated libs get much of their news from comedy shows like Jon Stewart.

Nietzsche spoke of revaluation of values but what we see is just the trivialization of values. There isn't even thought involved. Just infantile hysteria and pee-wee hermanish adoration of gays.
It's like our moral mission in life is to make gays happy and win their affection because they designed the costume for Lady Gaga.

In HUNGER GAMES, people who know hunger still have some sense of truth and basic values. But the mass-culture-addicted fools in the capital have no real values. Just push-button manipulations of syntheticized emotions.
Their idea of right and wrong is what makes them FEEL good via media manipulation.

Anonymous said...

Seeing KKK and worshiping gaygaygay. The New liberalism.

Anonymous said...

"Straight women seem just as enthused or moreso about gay marriage than many gays, judging by my facebook feed and a few conversations I've had."

A large majority of straight liberal women have bought gay men's publicity about themselves as women without breasts who want nothing more than to walk down the aisle with the love of their lives and be faithful forever more. I'm a woman and the only reason I can think of for so many women to go along with this delusion is that a lot of women are in denial about the nature of male sexuality in general, be those men gay or straight.

Gloria

Cail Corishev said...

Seriously, people get rejected by their families all all the time for good reasons and for bad, and they manage not to commit suicide. Why are gays so fragile?

Any mental health professional before about 1970 would have said that mental illnesses tend to overlap, so someone with the mental illness of homosexuality, just like someone with the illness of depression or anorexia, is more likely to be suicidal than a mentally healthy person.

Once they decided not to call homosexuality an illness anymore, a different reason had to be found: everyone is mean to them. I suppose once gay marriage is the norm and gayness has been fully accepted by everyone, some other reason will have to be found. Unless you believe the suicides will stop at that point, but I doubt anyone truly believes that.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Gays aren't the force behind the marriage push, liberal Jews, the "hostile elite" are. They provide the funding, define the debate, and shut people down when they don't agree. By themselves gays would not be able to create any more waves than polygamists.

Classic example: gay marriage was passed in New York after a couple Wall Street Jews bribed some legislators.


+++++++++++++++

I know as a Black person I won't be the most popular person here but it's clear Jews are behind this movement.

This is a media driven exercise, Jews and gays wield tremendous influence in the media. Of course same-sex marriage as much of what American Jews advocate for in the USA is not legal in Israel and has no hope of ever being legal since marriage there is dictated by religion.

Svigor said...

I suppose once gay marriage is the norm and gayness has been fully accepted by everyone, some other reason will have to be found. Unless you believe the suicides will stop at that point, but I doubt anyone truly believes that.

That's easy, then it'll be "phantom white bigotry," "white privilege," etc.

The nihilism that permeates homosexuality might have something to do with the suicides.

Svigor said...

I know as a Black person I won't be the most popular person here but it's clear Jews are behind this movement.

Nobody here gives a damn. You're just a string of black and white text. Your ideas are how you'll be judged.

Of course same-sex marriage as much of what American Jews advocate for in the USA is not legal in Israel and has no hope of ever being legal since marriage there is dictated by religion.

Interesting point.

Anonymous said...

gays and lesbians don't get married to nearly the degree that heterosexuals do.

Lesbians in Denmark get divorced at a rate 200% more than their hetero sisters so I guess the next big thing they would want is gay divorce?

David said...

>Lesbians in Denmark get divorced at a rate 200% more than their hetero sisters so I guess the next big thing they would want is gay divorce?<

Homosexuals are more interested in weddings than in marriages, our Steve once wrote cheekily.

But you're right, gay divorce is an important factor here: shysters of all stripes are less interested in the "hooman rights" issues allegedly involved than they are in the big paydays to be had from handling the inevitable increase in the overall number of divorce cases.